1
$\begingroup$

I coulnd't find clear explanations about the production of Iodine-131 in nuclear reactors based on U-235.

  • Can it be derived directly from U-235 ? In this case : U-235 + neutron -> I-131 + what ???

  • Or is it derived indirectly from U-235 ? In this case : U-235 + neutron -> X ? -> I-131 (what could be X? And by which process? neutron impact on X or beta-decay of X?)

Thanks for any information.

$\endgroup$
4
$\begingroup$

It is a fission product, one of many nuclides: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/NucEne/fisfrag.html

As uranium has Z=92 and iodine Z=53, the other piece could be yttrium (Z=39). But total Z may change because of all the beta-decays. The iodine isotope is likely a decay product of short-lived fission products like In-131, Sn-131, Sb-131, Te-131.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Hi Pieter, in your link, there is a table "Table of fission fragments" in which I-131 is not listed as a possible direct fission product of U-235. So, I-131 does appear, of course, but the chain of reactions leading to it remains a mystery... $\endgroup$ – Andrew Dec 20 '16 at 15:59
  • $\begingroup$ Uranium, like most heavy elements has a higher N/Z than lighter elements, at least their stable isotopes. Of course, neutron-induced fission of U-235 produces 2 extra neutrons, but you still have quite an excess. Z will increase, in the decay chains, to bring N/Z down to stable levels via beta decay. I'd look at e.g. Sn-131 (N=50) and Mo-102 (N=42), both unstable under beta decay. (Note that N adds up to 92, Z to 233. U-235 of course has Z=235 but fission produces neurons). Sn-131 will decay to I-131. $\endgroup$ – MSalters Dec 20 '16 at 16:04
  • $\begingroup$ The thesis you will find here : « esirc.emporia.edu/handle/123456789/3523 » looks quite interesting. Look at page 89 ; it gives a way for directly producing I-131 : U-235 + 1n -> U-236 -> Y-101 + I-131 + 4n Surely, many other ways are possible, through beta-decay of Te, Sn or else ; but at least, I have something to eat… $\endgroup$ – Andrew Dec 20 '16 at 17:54
1
$\begingroup$

Uranium only serves as a neutron source. Yes, the decay reaction produces I-131, but it's in the radioactive waste, and it would be a pain to extract it. Your typical reactor fuel is left in for many years, during which quite a bit of the produced I-131 would decay again. Plus, the waste is quite radioactive, making it inconvenient to handle. And you get a lot of I-129 that you can't chemically separate.

Actual production is based on a convenient fact: Natural Tellurium can be radiated with neutrons from U-235 fission. This will produce a wide variation of isotopes, but if you give the short-lived isotopes time to decay (~few hours), let the Xenon escape, and chemically remove the remaining Tellurium, you'll find that the remaining mixture is very rich in I-131.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Ah, now I understand the question, this was about producing isotopes for medical purposes etc. $\endgroup$ – Pieter Dec 19 '16 at 20:22
  • $\begingroup$ Could you write a reaction (or a chain of reactions) starting with U-235 and leading to I-131? I'm sorry to say, but it seems that nobody knows... $\endgroup$ – Andrew Dec 19 '16 at 20:29
  • $\begingroup$ @Andrew: The point of this answer is, that's not how you do it. Uranium is there to produce neutrons, the bulk of the Z for iodine-131 comes from Te-130. (Via Te-131) $\endgroup$ – MSalters Dec 19 '16 at 21:37
  • $\begingroup$ OK. I found : Te-130 + neutron -> Te-131 -> I-131 by beta decay. Now, do we have U-235 -> ... -> Te-130 ? $\endgroup$ – Andrew Dec 20 '16 at 8:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Andrew: Right, that seems to be a major misunderstanding there. I-131 is intentionally produced, e.g. for medical reasons, in the way that I describe (Tellurium on the side). But when you refer to Chernobyl & Fukushima, you're talking about the unintentional radioactive waste. See Pieter's answer for that. $\endgroup$ – MSalters Dec 20 '16 at 15:38
-1
$\begingroup$

Most radiopharmaceuticals are accelerator produced. Less costly than building a reactor. Accelerators offer a lower radiation risk to workers and essentially zero risk to the public.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I'm not sure how this answers the question though. Can you please elaborate? $\endgroup$ – AccidentalFourierTransform Jun 20 '18 at 22:11

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.